I am absolutely committed to using nuclear energy as well. Most analysts use statistics of US nuclear reactors to describe how affordable they are... they don't take into consideration that every American nuclear plant was first generation (a far cry from French reactors or fast-breeders)

If you were to compare the specs from a French nuclear reactor and compare it to a coal plant of the same capacity, you end up spending big for the nuclear plant, but the operating costs are tiny compared to coal (needing 15,000 tons a day) The waste produced is also tiny (A single coal plant produces more tons of ash per year than all the US reactors for 50 years) The dangers are also very low (Every disaster occurred under circumstances that would not be allowed under today's safety regulations) And they can be placed virtually anywhere (Coal must be near rail lines or a river. They also can't be near populated areas.)

Nuclear is the overall winner of dealing with the energy issues today. The biggest issue is that they are expensive to build and are ALWAYS long-term investments. If you are willing to make the investment, then a nuclear reactor would be more economic over its 60-year life than coal (with a fixed fuel price)